Совет национальной безопасности США
Совет национальной безопасности (англ. National Security Council, сокращённо СНБ) — консультативный орган при президенте США для решения наиболее важных вопросов национальной безопасности и внешней политики, и координации действий всех основных ведомств, связанных с указанными вопрос ...

Совет национальной безопасности (англ. National Security Council, сокращённо СНБ) — консультативный орган при президенте США для решения наиболее важных вопросов национальной безопасности и внешней политики, и координации действий всех основных ведомств, связанных с указанными вопросами.

Совет национальной безопасности был создан в 1947 году законом о национальной безопасности. Его созданию послужила убеждённость влиятельных американских политиков в том, что дипломатия Государственного департамента США больше не была способна сдерживать СССР при напряжённых отношениях между СССР и США[1]. Конечной целью его создания было обеспечение согласованности действий между военно-морскими силами, Корпусом морской пехоты, сухопутными войсками и военно-воздушными силами США.

2009 г.:

Заседание СНБ: президент Барак Обама, Госсекретарь Хиллари Клинтон, Министр обороны — Роберт Гейтс, Заместитель начальника ОКНШ — ген. Кэртрайт, директор разведки Деннис Блэр, советник президента Грег Крейг, директор ЦРУ Леон Панетта, заместитель начальника Совета внутренней безопасности Том Донилон, советник президента по национальной безопасности ген. Джеймс «Джим» Джонс и глава президентской администрации Рэм Эмануел

Развернуть описание Свернуть описание
03 апреля, 13:35

Playbook: ‘THE TRUMP SLUMP’

Since President Donald Trump announced his plan to institute tariffs and his top adviser Gary Cohn quit, the S&P 500 has been down roughly five percent.

03 апреля, 12:35

CNN: военные США разработали план переброски десятков военнослужащих в Сирию

По данным телеканала, этот вопрос будет обсуждаться во вторник на заседании Совета национальной безопасности США

03 апреля, 11:18

Трамп настаивает на выводе американских сил из Сирии

Другие источники в администрации подтвердили агентству Reuters, что на этой неделе глава Белого дома принял решение ограничить финансирование восстановительных работ в районах Сирии, уже освобожденных от боевиков «Исламского государства». Ранее издание Wall Street Journal сообщило, что на эти цели Госдепартамент планировал выделить 200 млн долларов. Выступая в минувший четверг в Ричфилде, штат Огайо, президент Трамп заявил, что для США «пришло время покинуть Сирию». «Пусть этим займутся другие люди, - сказал президент США. - Очень скоро, очень скоро мы покинем (эту страну). Мы вернемся в нашу страну, туда... где мы хотим быть».

03 апреля, 05:16

Трамп настаивает на выводе американских сил из Сирии

 Совет национальной безопасности США может рассмотреть эту инициативу уже на следующей неделе

02 апреля, 17:28

New Trump White House aide has Cambridge Analytica ties

A newly appointed Trump national security council aide and longtime behavioral change analyst worked until recently for the parent of Cambridge Analytica, the controversial political data company whose role in Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is drawing scrutiny for its alleged improper use of private Facebook data.Kirsten Fontenrose joined the Trump White House in March as the NSC senior director for Gulf Affairs. There is no indication that Fontenrose, who also has worked for the State Department and U.S. military, was involved in Cambridge’s election effort or any other activities that have come under scrutiny by investigators. But her work for Cambridge’s parent company, SCL Group, underscores the firm’s influence in Trump’s Washington, even as critics say that its government contracts deserve additional scrutiny because of the company’s often-controversial work overseas.It also sheds light on how SCL Group has quietly but aggressively exploited the U.S. government’s outsourcing of some intelligence, military and diplomatic efforts to private contractors, in part by hiring former national security officials like Fontenrose, and Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who went on to become Trump’s first national security adviser.An NSC spokesperson declined to discuss Fontenrose’s background or portfolio and said Fontenrose herself would not comment. The NSC official also declined to comment on whether Fontenrose’s current role would involve working with, or having oversight of, government contracts involving SCL or affiliated firms.The London-based SCL group combines behavioral research and communications methods, a formula that its subsidiary, Cambridge Analytica, says it uses to powerful effect in campaign and elections. The 2016 Trump campaign paid Cambridge Analytica at least $5.9 million to shape its digital media strategy, although former Trump campaign officials have downplayed the company’s role in the wake of revelations that the company was given improper access to data of about 50 million Facebook users.The political action committee founded by President Trump’s incoming national security adviser, John Bolton, also hired Cambridge to develop psychological profiles of voters with data harvested from Facebook profiles, according to a report published by The New York Times. Special counsel Robert Mueller reportedly has asked the firm to provide him with emails of any employees who worked on the Trump campaign, according to The Wall Street Journal. That could suggest interest in whether Russia somehow accessed or manipulated the company's data as part of its interference in the 2016 election, which Mueller is investigating.SCL boasts of its numerous intelligence, military and civilian contracts for the U.S. government, in many cases to influence human behavior using some of the same high-tech digital messaging techniques that the firm used in the 2016 election. Its website says it provides “data, analytics and strategy to governments and military organizations worldwide,” including “behavioral change programs in over 60 countries.”SCL does not disclose specifics about the contracts, including dollar amounts, work performed and, in many cases, the government agency, and a company spokesman did not respond to requests for comment. A former company official told POLITICO that it withholds such details for competitive reasons and because the work is often classified.A Cambridge company official said Thursday that Fontenrose had worked there as recently as a month ago but had no further comment.After Trump took office in January 2017, SCL Group was a constant presence in Washington, lobbying to win new intelligence, defense and civilian contracts across multiple U.S. government agencies. The Washington Post reported in February 2017 that SCL’s effort was being driven by a former aide to Flynn, and that Flynn himself had served as an adviser to the company in its efforts to expand its contracting work. Other newly hired former government officials also helped in that expansion effort, according to a former Cambridge Analytica official.Fontenrose appears to have been one of them.Her LinkedIn profile does not mention SCL or Cambridge Analytica, but said as of Friday that she had begun work in January 2017 as an “MFS” independent consultant advising government and private sector partners in “the class and unclass,” or classified and unclassified space.In March 2017, Fontenrose accompanied SCL’s UK-based chief executive officer, Nigel Oakes, on a visit to the Pentagon to meet with Department of Defense staff, according a BuzzFeed report, which suggested the two were there to drum up more business for the company. In early 2017, SCL Group won a $496,000 contract to conduct “target audience research” for the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, which leads U.S. efforts to counter foreign state and terrorist propaganda and disinformation. Fontenrose has spent more than a decade working on similar issues, including during five years at the State Department as a senior adviser for strategic planning, according to her LinkedIn profile and her publicly available research. Her last job there, ending in November 2016, was as the “Lead for Africa and the Middle East” at the Global Engagement Center. She also was a “strategy consultant” for the Multi National Forces — Iraq and its Strategic Effects Division in 2006 and early 2007, and a vice president at the Archimedes Global Inc. contracting firm.

02 апреля, 12:01

Some Rare Praise for Trump’s National Security Purge

In Hugh Hewitt, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo have a one-man fan club.

02 апреля, 05:15

Accused NSA leaker wants to subpoena states, cybersecurity firms and federal agencies

But the justification for the subpoenas remains under seal.

31 марта, 23:43

Трамп хочет вывести американские войска из Сирии, - Reuters

Президент Соединенных Штатов Дональд Трамп сообщил своим советникам, что он хочет скорейшего вывода американских войск из Сирии. Об этом сообщили двое высокопоставленных чиновников США, передает Reuters. Отмечается, что на начало следующей недели запланировано заседание Совета национальной безопасности США, на котором будет обсуждаться кампания против террористов "Исламского государства" (ИГИЛ) в Сирии под руководством США...

31 марта, 19:24

Breaking News, 31st of March, 2018

Al Jazeera reports that the number of victims of clashes between Israeli military and Palestinian demonstrators reached 15 people, and more than 1,400 people were injured. According to Al Jazeera, in response to Palestinian attempts to cross border fortifications - Israeli military used firearms and tear gas. 748 people with bullet wounds went to hospitals. The United Nations Security Council, while being influenced by the USA, initiated new sanctions against the DPRK on Friday, the Interfax news agency reports citing the South China Morning Post. 21 companies, 27 ships and one person were included in the black lists, due to allegations of smuggling North Korean goods, mainly oil and coal. New restrictions were introduced during the on-going preparation of the first ever meeting between the president of the USA, and the leader of North Korea. Russia's ambassador to the USA, Anatoly Antonov, reported the termination of the Russian consulate in Seattle. The American authorities demanded the release of the residence of the Russian consul, he told on Friday. According to Anatoly, Russia rented the premises of the Consulate in Seattle. Due to the request of the US authorities, it should cease its activity on March 30th at 17:00 local time, explained the ambassador. According to US mass media reports, US President Donald Trump suspended the allocation of $ 200 million, which was previously planned to be used to restore Syria, RIA NEWS reports. On Thursday, Donald Trump, while speaking in Ohio, said that the US will leave Syria "very soon" and they will "let others take care of it." The US State Department, however, insisted that they do not have any information about Trump's plans for an "exit from Syria." According to various sources, the White House ordered the State Department to suspend the allocation of these funds. As a result of the explosion of a landmine in the Afghan city of Kandahar, two Afghan soldiers were killed, and three more were wounded, RIA NEWS reports. The explosive device exploded when a car of the local armed forces unknowingly moved close enough to the landmine. According to local authorities, it was a magnetic mine. No terrorist group has claimed the responsibility for the explosion so far. Ukrainian troops fired at the LPR positions four times over the past day. The areas of villages Zheltoye, Logvinovo, Kalinovo and the village of Krasny Yar were under attack. Meanwhile in the DRP, Ukrainian troops fired 19 times during the same period, using 194 shells. The village of Spartak in the northern suburbs of Donetsk, the village of Staromikhailovka in the west of the capital DPR, as well as the outer areas of Gorlovka and the southern villages of the Republic were under attack. Mortars, grenade launchers, weaponry of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, as well as small arms, were used in the shelling. Агентство ANNA-News это волонтерский проект. Волонтеры ANNA-News ведут свои репортажи с мест событий, снимают видеоролики и публикуют аналитические статьи по проблеме национальной безопасности России и ее союзников в современных военно-политических условиях. ANNA-News это самые последние и актуальные новости из районов боевых действий Более подробно на сайте http://anna-news.info Помочь материально: http://anna-news.info/помощь-агентству-anna-news/ Мы в соцсетях: Вконтакте https://vk.com/anna_news Facebooke https://www.facebook.com/newsanna/ Twitter https://twitter.com/annanews_info Instagram https://www.instagram.com/anna_news.info/

31 марта, 13:17

U.N. Imposes Sanctions on North Korea

The United Nations Security Council announced sanctions against North Korea on Friday despite plans for summit talks. The sanctions target one individual and 21 shipping companies and 27 ships for helping North Korea evade international sanctions through maritime smuggling of oil and coal.

30 марта, 11:35

А сейчас насколько свободнее?

Советским вход запрещён! или Ничего нового расисты янки не придумали... / Холодный железный занавесЕщё шпионаж и русофобия США здесь и здесьОригинал взят у mamlas в eto_fake«Не доверяли им»: как Штаты закрылись для русскихНа какие территории США запрещался въезд гражданам СССРМежду Западом и Россией развивается новый конфликт, связанный с «делом Скрипаля». Пока стороны ограничиваются только высылкой дипломатов, однако в скором времени в ход может пойти более серьезный арсенал мер, проверенных временем. ©Ещё ХВ СССР-США здесь, здесь и здесь___«Газета.Ru» вспоминает, в какие штаты США в разгар холодной войны не пускали советских резидентов и какая из двух стран была гостеприимнее для граждан потенциального противника.Год за годом США вводят новые санкции в отношении России. В списке граждан, которым запрещен въезд на территорию Штатов, десятки фамилий, а в связи с отравлением Сергея Скрипаля из страны массово высылают российских дипломатов.Однако, какой бы возмутительной ни казалась ситуация жителям России, к гражданам СССР когда-то применялись гораздо более жесткие меры.В годы холодной войны страх перед СССР побудил правительство США запретить гостям из страны победившего социализма посещать значительную часть своей территории. На карте, выпущенной 11 ноября 1957 года, видно, что людям с паспортом СССР был запрещен въезд на остров Лонг-Айленд, в большую часть Северной Калифорнии и почти на все восточное побережье Флориды.В целом, для граждан СССР была закрыта почти треть США.Территории, запрещенные для въезда жителей СССР, на карте отмечены красным. Зелеными кругами выделены города на этих территориях, в которые советские граждане все же имели доступ. Красными кругами — запрещенные города на разрешенных для въезда территориях, в основном в южных штатах и на Среднем Западе.___Принцип, по которому запрещался и разрешался въезд, вызывает вопросы. Почему граждане СССР могли попасть в Мемфис, а в, например, Нэшвилл — нет? Почему для них был закрыт весь штат Вашингтон?Возможно, для некоторых территорий запрет был обоснован, но остальные, по всей видимости, были выбраны произвольно, просто чтобы ограничить доступ для граждан СССР, как сам СССР поступил с гостями из США, считает специалист по картографии Райан Мур.«Мы просто не доверяли друг другу», — сообщил он изданию National Geographic.Военные базы и фабрики, вероятно, были областями, вызывавшими особую озабоченность. В меморандуме Государственного Департамента США, опубликованном в 1955 году, перечислены объекты, которые советским гражданам было запрещено рисовать или фотографировать. Среди них — военные объекты, склады для хранения топлива, порты, электростанции, фабрики и средства связи. Также было запрещено делать фотографии на борту самолетов на рейсах США.Но, видимо, были и другие причины.«Я думаю, мы хотели, чтобы они как можно меньше видели последствия законов Джима Кроу (законов о расовой сегрегации в некоторых штатах США) и другие особенности нашего общества, которые могли бы использовать для пропаганды. В конце концов, холодная война была идеологическим противостоянием между востоком и западом, — считает Мур. — Любой недостаток одной страны выставлялся другой напоказ».___На самом деле ограничения 1957 года были даже более мягкими, чем те, что действовали раньше.Так, в 1952 году въезд в США жителям СССР был запрещен, если они не получили специального разрешения от генерального прокурора. В 1953-1954 годах это удалось сделать лишь 33 жителям СССР.В СССР при этом относились к гостям из США гораздо более демократично — те имели возможность посетить большую часть Советского Союза. В СССР такое положение дел рассматривалось как пример лицемерия США, которые, будучи якобы более либеральными, по факту использовали куда более жесткую ограничительную политику, чем СССР.В докладе Совета национальной безопасности США 1955 года даже говорится, что Вашингтон обвиняют в поддержании «железного занавеса».«Со времени смерти Сталина СССР ослабил ограничения на въезд на территорию СССР и выезд с нее. В соответствии с новой советской политикой 101 гражданин США был допущен в СССР в 1953 и 1954 годах. С другой стороны, США, по практическим соображениям безопасности и политическим причинам, связанным с усилением осознания коммунистической угрозы, неохотно допускали граждан Восточного блока. В результате США оказываются в парадоксальном положении, которое используется коммунистической пропагандой. Несмотря на традиционную политическую поддержку свободы передвижения... США обвиняются в поддержании «железного занавеса», и обвинения эти исходят не только от коммунистов, но и от иных дружественных персон. Эта ситуация наносит и может продолжить наносить ущерб престижу и репутации США как лидера свободного мира», — отмечалось в начале доклада.В докладе рассматриваются плюсы и минусы ослабления имеющихся ограничений. Так, среди положительных сторон — потенциальная возможность того, что советские граждане переметнутся на сторону США или, как минимум, распространят информацию об успехах страны. «Некоторых путешественников из Восточного блока не может не впечатлить американская обстановка и американские технологические достижения», — считали авторы доклада.Также они отмечали возможность въезда большего количества жителей США в СССР в качестве ответного жеста. Кроме того, ограничения препятствовали проведению в США научных и культурных конвенций, и их снятие могло способствовать притоку образованных людей, в том числе и не из СССР.Среди недостатков — ослабление бдительности США в отношении «советской угрозы» и повышенная вероятность въезда шпионов, возможность гостям из СССР практически беспрепятственно собирать стратегическую информацию о США, пропаганда со стороны приезжих.В конце концов президент Эйзенхауэр решил действовать так же, как руководство СССР, и открыл советским гражданам доступ на 70% территории США, в том числе к большинству городов с населением более 100 тыс. Почти все оставшиеся ограничения в 1962 году снял президент Кеннеди. Однако для советских репортеров и правительственных чиновников они действовали до конца холодной войны.© «Газета.ру», 28 марта 2018

29 марта, 02:29

John Bolton's knife-fighting skills alarm his critics

‘He knows how to work around bureaucratic barriers,’ said a former top Obama official of Trump’s incoming national security adviser.

29 марта, 00:20

Trump slow-walks effort to replace Hope Hicks

With the communications director due to leave this week, Trump is poised to take greater control over White House messaging.

29 марта, 00:15

U.N. Security Council condemns Houthi missile attacks on Saudi Arabia

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United Nations Security Council on Wednesday condemned a barrage of missile attacks against Saudi Arabia by Yemen's Houthi group and expressed grave concern at reports of violations of an U.N. arms embargo on Houthi leaders.

28 марта, 20:07

Turkey says will take action if militants do not leave Syria's Manbij

ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Turkey will take action if militants do not withdraw immediately from Syria's Manbij region and areas in the country east of the Euphrates, Ankara's National Security Council said on Wednesday.

28 марта, 15:35

Названа причина нежелания Трампа обсуждать дело Скрипаля с Путиным

Президент США Дональд Трамп не стал обсуждать по телефону со своим российским коллегой Владимиром Путиным дело Скрипаля, потому что «не хотел заранее уведомлять» его о планах по высылке дипломатов. Об этом заявил официальный представитель Совета национальной безопасности США Майкл Энтон.

28 марта, 07:50

США объяснили, почему Трамп не обсуждал с Путиным «дело Скрипаля»

Президент США Дональд Трамп не стал обсуждать по телефону с президентом России Владимиром Путиным отравление бывшего полковника ГРУ Сергея Скрипаля в Солсбери, потому что не хотел заранее уведомлять его о своих планах выслать российских дипломатов из-за «дела Скрипаля». Об этом в эфире телеканала CNN заявил официальный представитель Совета национальной безопасности США Майкл Энтон.«Причина, по которой он (Дональд Трамп.— “Ъ”) не поднял тему отравления в разговоре с Путиным, состоит в том, что намерения США (выслать российских дипломатов.— “Ъ”) приводились в действие как раз во время их беседы. Как часто говорил президент Трамп, он не телеграфирует о своих шагах или ударах, когда принимает решение действовать»,— пояснил представитель администрации США.Разговор президентов двух стран состоялся 20 марта. Господа Путин и Трамп обсудили ситуации в Сирии, на Украине и в КНДР, усилия по ограничению гонки вооружений, а также возможную встречу на высшем уровне. В Кремле сообщили, что разговор «носил конструктивный…

28 марта, 05:10

В Белом доме рассказали, почему Трамп не стал беседовать с Путиным о «деле Скрипаля»

В администрации США рассказали, почему во время последнего телефонного разговора Дональд Трамп не стал беседовать с Владимиром Путиным о «деле Скрипаля».

28 марта, 02:12

Трамп улучшит отношения с Россией, если Кремль «изберет другой путь»

Об этом заявил официальный представитель Совета национальной безопасности США Майкл Энтон.

27 марта, 19:00

NSC spokesman: Trump omitted spy attack during Putin call to not tip off expulsions

A spokesman for the National Security Council said Tuesday that President Donald Trump did not discuss the nerve agent attack on an ex-spy in the U.K during his call with Russian President Vladimir Putin because he didn't want to “give them advance notice” of his plans to expel their diplomats.“The reason he didn't bring up the poisoning in the conversation with Putin is because this U.S. action was in motion at the time they had the conversation,” NSC spokesman Michael Anton told CNN. “As President Trump often has said, he doesn't telegraph his moves or telegraph his punches when he's about to make a move.”The Trump administration announced Monday it is expelling 60 Russian diplomats over Moscow's alleged role in the attack on Sergei Skripal, a former Russian spy, in Salisbury earlier this month.The United Kingdom and the European Union unveiled their own retaliatory steps toward the Kremlin on Monday, with British Prime Minister Theresa May saying more than 100 Russian intelligence officials would be expelled and European Council President Donald Tusk announcing 14 EU member states would follow suit in ejecting Russian officials. U.S. and European leaders have implicated the Russian government in the attack on Skripal, with Trump concurring with May’s findings that Moscow "probably" directed the illegal use of a banned nerve agent in the attempted murder of the ex-spy. Despite the Trump administration’s sharp actions against the Kremlin, Trump opted not to discuss the Skripal attack during a phone conversation with Putin last week. During the discussion Trump predicted the two leaders would soon meet and congratulated Putin on his recent re-election, a gesture several lawmakers condemned.Anton on Tuesday also pushed back against critics who say that the president has not spoken out forcefully enough to denounce Russian attempts to influence the 2016 elections. “Come on, now, they had a 45 minute – out of two-and-a-half hour meeting in Hamburg, 45 to 50 minutes of that was spent on meddling in the elections,” Anton said, citing the two leaders’ face to face meeting during a G20 summit in Germany last year. “The president felt that Putin said all he was going to say, denied it several times, was never going to be move off that denial.”

04 сентября 2015, 14:40

The Clinton Emails and the Iran Lobby

The release of another batch of Hillary Clinton emails, courtesy of the State Department, provides an opportunity to glimpse inside the formation of the Obama administration's approach to Iran in the early days of his presidency. Several interesting emails in particular shed some light on the important role a pro-Iranian lobbying group played in shaping U.S. policy. In fact, given the smear merchants who constantly berate the "Jewish lobby" as being all-powerful in Washington, it turns out that the Iran lobby has been far more influential during the Obama presidency and that they've had the ear of key policymakers in the administration. As Hillary Clinton's emails demonstrate, a 10-page plan sent to her by four key members of The Iran Project provided the blueprint for America's strategy with Iran. Perhaps no one has taken a deeper dive into the Iran lobby than Lee Smith, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and senior editor of The Weekly Standard. In a series of articles he penned in his Tablet Magazine column, "Agents of Influence" in 2010, he explored the dueling Iran lobbies in detail, half a year after the protest movement in Iran was crushed by the regime. In "Iran's Man in Washington," Smith explored Flynt Leverett and his wife, Hillary Mann Leverett, whose main claim to fame rested on Flynt's access to the hard-line elements of the regime in Tehran and the couple's invention of a "grand bargain" offered by Iran in 2003. Smith explains that Flynt "was lionized by liberals for his opposition to the Bush administration's Iran policy." They blamed the Bush administration for not taking Iran up on their proposed "grand bargain." The problem was, as a former colleague on the National Security Council staff recalled, "It was either a concoction of the Swiss ambassador, or of the Swiss ambassador and the Leveretts together." Lee Smith elaborated: Although the legend of the Grand Bargain has been discredited, the tale--a narrative describing a sensible, realistic Iran eagerly courting a stubborn Washington, with the Leveretts in the middle of things--served its purpose. It not only identified the couple as critics of the Bush administration, it also certified them as experts about the Iranian regime--and as instruments through which the regime might influence Washington. Another pillar of the Iran lobby in Washington, Smith writes in "The Immigrant," is Trita Parsi, head of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), who became the face of the Iranian-American lobby in Washington. Unlike the Leveretts, Parsi "nurtured a relationship with regime insiders close to Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani--the so-called 'reformers' in Tehran--who have squared off against the faction favored by the Leveretts, which includes Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the Revolutionary Guard Corps." Trita Parsi came to the U.S. from Sweden in 2001, having left Iran when he was four years old, in 1978 before the Iranian revolution kicked into high gear. In 2002, he formed the NIAC "hoping to give voice not only to the diaspora's talents and resources but also its growing resentments." In a recent article, "Meet the Iran Lobby," Lee Smith described Parsi as "the tip of the spear of the Iran Lobby," who "won a defining battle over the direction of American foreign policy." Given the nuclear agreement reached in Vienna in July, there can be no doubt that Lee Smith is right. The Iran lobby has indeed become powerful in Washington's policy circles and at the highest levels of government. This is the story of another pillar of that lobby, The Iran Project, and the role they played in working with the Obama administration in its infancy to form an approach to Iran, as evidenced by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails. Determination in the Administration Preferring to eschew the hardball foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration, it's no secret that Obama believed he could catch more bees with honey. Shortly after taking office in 2009, the new president began a process of engagement with Iran that was ultimately designed to reestablish full U.S. diplomatic relations. A major Israeli newspaper, Maariv, reported that Washington was ready to hold senior level diplomatic contacts, agree to reciprocal visits, approve security cooperation between the countries, establish direct flights between the U.S. and Iran, and grant visas to Iranians wishing to visit the United States. Much to Obama's chagrin, the Iranians rejected the overture. President Obama, however, remained determined to strike a grand bargain with Iran. During his initial diplomatic outreach, thousands of Iranian protesters took to the streets to protest the fraudulent election results that reelected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The regime brutally cracked down on the protesters killing hundreds, and arresting and torturing thousands. But Obama was undeterred and kept engaging with the regime. Nor did he appear to re-think his approach few months later in September when the U.S., Britain, and France revealed that Iran was secretly building a uranium enrichment facility in a mountain near Qom that came to be known as the Fordow facility. Despite the failure of Obama's outreach in his first year and the clenched fist response offered by the regime in Tehran, the White House was still in need of a strategy with Iran. The blueprint that the Obama administration eventually adopted was one put out by the president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Stephen Heintz, and former ambassadors, William Luers, Thomas Pickering, and Frank Wisner. They are the key members of The Iran Project, a pro-Iran lobbying group "dedicated to improving the relationship between the U.S. and Iranian governments." The Iran Project Peter Waldman explained in an article for Bloomberg Politics that "for more than a decade they've conducted a dialogue with well placed Iranians, including Mohammad Javad Zarif," Iran's foreign minister and chief nuclear negotiator. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund spent millions of dollars since 2003 promoting a nuclear agreement with Iran, mainly through The Iran Project. After the 9/11 attacks, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund's president, Stephen Heintz, became more infatuated with Iran and he began thinking about "its geostrategic importance and its relation to the Sunni world," Heintz said. So he established The Iran Project in cooperation with the United Nations Association of the U.S. headed by William Luers. Luers made contact with Mohammad Javad Zarif through Iran's mission to the UN in New York. He also recruited career diplomats Thomas Pickering (who also serves on NIAC's Advisory Board) and Frank Wisner. They "developed a relationship with Zarif, who was stationed in New York representing Iran at the UN. In early 2002, The Iran Project set up a meeting with Iranians affiliated with the Institute for Political and International Studies in Tehran, a think tank with close government ties," Waldman explained. The secret meetings they held in European capitals stopped when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became Iran's president in 2005 but their relationship with Zarif proved to be lynchpin in getting negotiations underway when he was made foreign minister in 2013. Waldman quotes a State Department official saying that the administration welcomed backchannel efforts like The Iran Project's because "it proves useful both to have knowledgeable former officials and country experts engaging with their counterparts and in reinforcing our own messages when possible." But The Iran Project, which became an independent non-governmental entity as Barack Obama took office in 2009, did more than that for the State Department under Hillary Clinton. They provided the initial plan that as their website states, would "encourage greater cooperation between the U.S. and Iran for greater regional stability." In other words, early on in the Obama administration, the decision was made that a deal with Iran would be about more than their nuclear file. Toward a New Policy on Iran In December 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Under-Secretary of State William Burns met with Heintz, Luers, Pickering, and Wisner--four of the nine key leaders of The Iran Project. As Hillary Clinton's emails demonstrate, Pickering emailed her their 10-page plan that "provides fuller detail on the ideas we discussed" on December 22, 2010. Entitled, "Toward a New Policy on Iran," it provided the outline for U.S. policy toward the Islamic Republic. Indeed, most of the features contained in the plan are recognizable looking back at U.S. diplomacy since that time. It is, in essence, a document of America's surrender from the Middle East and acquiescence in Iran's dominance in the region. This policy prescription would set the table to discuss the terms of that surrender. "We propose that you urge the President to instruct you to open a direct relationship with Iran," their 2010 policy paper states. "The burden rests on the U.S. to convince an uncertain Iranian leadership to come out of its shell." That required written assurances that the Obama administration would not seek a policy of regime change. Mr. Obama sent Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei a letter early in his first term and many more followed between either Khamenei or President Rouhani after his 2013 election. To start off on the right foot with Iran, President Obama "must find a way to communicate directly with the Supreme Leader a U.S. desire to open official talks" and it should be conducted through a personal emissary he appoints to deliver oral messages. According to Israel's biggest-selling daily newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, Barack Obama dispatched a personal emissary to a series of secret meetings in the late summer and autumn of 2012 to meet with "Iranian officials led by a personal representative of Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei." Obama's emissary was his special adviser, Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago lawyer and close friend of Mr. Obama, born in Shiraz, Iran, to American parents. The paper described her as "a key figure in secret contacts the White House is conducting with the Iranian regime." What Obama's emissary should call for "in a respectful tone" is mutual recognition of the other's legitimate interests in the area. That means before any discussions would commence, the U.S. would have to recognize as legitimate, Iran's reach into Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, to the Mediterranean Sea. In other words, the United States should sign up to legitimize the export of the Islamic Republic's revolution, a central raison d'être of the regime that emerged after the 1979 revolution. A thaw in relations must precede progress on the nuclear deal, this Iran lobby argued, because one of the consequences of continuing with the current policy "will be the missed opportunity to engage Iran in a long tem constructive regional strategy." Indeed, with Iran acting as America's partner in the Middle East, there will be an opportunity to help establish "a regional security structure aimed at giving Iran and the Gulf states a greater sense of stability." This would allow the U.S. and Iran "to develop together approaches to... eventually weaken Iran's support for Hamas and Hezbollah." This, of course, is akin to discussing fire safety measures with the neighborhood's leading arsonist. Therefore, the U.S. should immediately redeem Iran, end its isolation, and cooperate with the regime in Tehran on other issues of mutual interest before discussing the nuclear program directly: "A U.S. offer to cooperate with Iran as an equal partner on one or more non-nuclear issues will set the stage for [sic] more fruitful discussion of the nuclear issue. The U.S. will improve markedly chances to get Iran to deal seriously with the nuclear issues by starting with an offer to cooperate on other problems in the region." That is precisely what the Obama administration has been at pains to avoid saying publicly--that the U.S. has acted as Iran's air force in Iraq in an effort to rollback the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or ISIS. As Lee Smith reported in Tablet Magazine in May 2014: In Lebanon, the U.S. intelligence community has teamed up with the Lebanese Armed Forces' military intelligence, essentially now a subset of Hezbollah, to fight Sunni extremists. In Iraq, the administration has dispatched arms to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, another Iranian asset who is allied with groups that have killed American soldiers, like Asaib Ahl a-Haq, to support his counter-insurgency against Sunni fighters. Regarding the nuclear negotiations themselves, the plan's authors called on the administration to adopt an approach that would provide for Iran's enrichment under international supervision and would eliminate any suggestion that Iran suspends either its enrichment or its manufacturing of key components for their nuclear facilities as a precondition for any progress toward direct talks. And finally, once they begin to negotiate directly with each other, the U.S. should set aside the "zero enrichment preconditions for any progress in the talks." That means shredding the previous six UN Security Council resolutions aimed at stopping Iran's nuclear program and offering upfront to Iran the right to enrich uranium on its own soil. Most critics of the nuclear pact reached in July consider the original sin to be Obama's concession to Iran that they would be allowed to complete the full nuclear cycle on their own soil. What the Fatwa? Picking up on the Iran lobby's paper, another key talking point the Obama administration relied on is an understanding that "the Leader's fatwa against the building or use of nuclear weapons could establish an excellent basis for discussions with the aim of agreement for greater IAEA access to Iran's nuclear program to assure the world about Iran's nuclear intentions and develop an arrangement regarding enrichment." This nuclear fatwa, however, is a canard and a hoax. It is "nothing more than a propaganda ruse on the part of the Iranian regime," according to many analysts including the Middle East Media Research Institute. Nevertheless, it has been frequently cited by the administration and repeated by Mr. Obama in his March 2015 annual statement to Iran marking the Persian new year. And the IAEA now has secret side deals with Iran for inspections with holes so big one could drive a rundown Iranian Saipa through. To top it all off, The Iran Project policy plan also called for "mutual recognition that both leaders of the U.S. and Iran have stated publicly their desire for a world without nuclear weapons." That was designed to send a shot over Israel's bow--an assumed nuclear weapons program that sparked no regional nuclear arms race such as Iran's today. True to form, with the July nuclear deal sealed and in the rearview mirror, Mohammad Zarif penned an article in The Guardian, "Iran has signed a historic nuclear deal--now it's Israel's turn." Iran's Success at America's Expense If the Obama administration did not adopt this plan in its entirety, then it would be an impressive coincidence that just about all of the proposals in The Iran Project's blueprint were adopted and the predictable outcome is the shameful and harmful nuclear deal with Iran. It's not just that the Obama administration was willing to adopt the deal; it's the workman-like salesmanship of the deal that Mr. Obama is engaged in. Despite poll after poll indicating that the more Americans learn about the deal, the less they like it--with a two-to-one margin currently opposed--President Obama has stood resolute. Instead of explaining that the deal wasn't perfect but it was the best he could negotiate and it meets U.S. security needs, or acknowledging that his critics have some good points (since they're based on the President's broken promises) and working to make a few unilateral adjustments that would set more minds at ease, he has chose a different path. He offered no quarter, likening the experts who came out against the agreement to "Lobbyists and pundits" who "were suddenly transformed into arm-chair nuclear scientists." Then, he labeled them "the crazies." In a manner befitting of former CIA Director George Tenet's "slam dunk" prognosis in the run up the 2003 Iraq war, Obama even declared: "I've had to make a lot of tough calls as President, but whether or not this deal is good for American security is not one of those calls. It's not even close." The crystal clear reality is that the Obama administration is not just onboard with the Iran lobby's positions, but he has bought it all--hook, line, and sinker. Whether the inception of the idea began before he came to Washington, or whether The Iran Project, the National Iranian American Council, or the likes of the Leveretts cemented the approach he would adopt during negotiations, one thing is certain: The nuclear deal with Iran is a boon for all involved other than the U.S. and its allies in Israel and the wider Middle East. It marks America's definitive shift away from its traditional regional allies and defines a new relationship with a former adversary that is unfortunately based on hope rather than experience. The Iran lobby will no doubt celebrate this and build on their quiet and impressive success. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

04 сентября 2015, 14:40

The Clinton Emails and the Iran Lobby

The release of another batch of Hillary Clinton emails, courtesy of the State Department, provides an opportunity to glimpse inside the formation of the Obama administration's approach to Iran in the early days of his presidency. Several interesting emails in particular shed some light on the important role a pro-Iranian lobbying group played in shaping U.S. policy. In fact, given the smear merchants who constantly berate the "Jewish lobby" as being all-powerful in Washington, it turns out that the Iran lobby has been far more influential during the Obama presidency and that they've had the ear of key policymakers in the administration. As Hillary Clinton's emails demonstrate, a 10-page plan sent to her by four key members of The Iran Project provided the blueprint for America's strategy with Iran. Perhaps no one has taken a deeper dive into the Iran lobby than Lee Smith, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and senior editor of The Weekly Standard. In a series of articles he penned in his Tablet Magazine column, "Agents of Influence" in 2010, he explored the dueling Iran lobbies in detail, half a year after the protest movement in Iran was crushed by the regime. In "Iran's Man in Washington," Smith explored Flynt Leverett and his wife, Hillary Mann Leverett, whose main claim to fame rested on Flynt's access to the hard-line elements of the regime in Tehran and the couple's invention of a "grand bargain" offered by Iran in 2003. Smith explains that Flynt "was lionized by liberals for his opposition to the Bush administration's Iran policy." They blamed the Bush administration for not taking Iran up on their proposed "grand bargain." The problem was, as a former colleague on the National Security Council staff recalled, "It was either a concoction of the Swiss ambassador, or of the Swiss ambassador and the Leveretts together." Lee Smith elaborated: Although the legend of the Grand Bargain has been discredited, the tale--a narrative describing a sensible, realistic Iran eagerly courting a stubborn Washington, with the Leveretts in the middle of things--served its purpose. It not only identified the couple as critics of the Bush administration, it also certified them as experts about the Iranian regime--and as instruments through which the regime might influence Washington. Another pillar of the Iran lobby in Washington, Smith writes in "The Immigrant," is Trita Parsi, head of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), who became the face of the Iranian-American lobby in Washington. Unlike the Leveretts, Parsi "nurtured a relationship with regime insiders close to Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani--the so-called 'reformers' in Tehran--who have squared off against the faction favored by the Leveretts, which includes Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the Revolutionary Guard Corps." Trita Parsi came to the U.S. from Sweden in 2001, having left Iran when he was four years old, in 1978 before the Iranian revolution kicked into high gear. In 2002, he formed the NIAC "hoping to give voice not only to the diaspora's talents and resources but also its growing resentments." In a recent article, "Meet the Iran Lobby," Lee Smith described Parsi as "the tip of the spear of the Iran Lobby," who "won a defining battle over the direction of American foreign policy." Given the nuclear agreement reached in Vienna in July, there can be no doubt that Lee Smith is right. The Iran lobby has indeed become powerful in Washington's policy circles and at the highest levels of government. This is the story of another pillar of that lobby, The Iran Project, and the role they played in working with the Obama administration in its infancy to form an approach to Iran, as evidenced by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails. Determination in the Administration Preferring to eschew the hardball foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration, it's no secret that Obama believed he could catch more bees with honey. Shortly after taking office in 2009, the new president began a process of engagement with Iran that was ultimately designed to reestablish full U.S. diplomatic relations. A major Israeli newspaper, Maariv, reported that Washington was ready to hold senior level diplomatic contacts, agree to reciprocal visits, approve security cooperation between the countries, establish direct flights between the U.S. and Iran, and grant visas to Iranians wishing to visit the United States. Much to Obama's chagrin, the Iranians rejected the overture. President Obama, however, remained determined to strike a grand bargain with Iran. During his initial diplomatic outreach, thousands of Iranian protesters took to the streets to protest the fraudulent election results that reelected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The regime brutally cracked down on the protesters killing hundreds, and arresting and torturing thousands. But Obama was undeterred and kept engaging with the regime. Nor did he appear to re-think his approach few months later in September when the U.S., Britain, and France revealed that Iran was secretly building a uranium enrichment facility in a mountain near Qom that came to be known as the Fordow facility. Despite the failure of Obama's outreach in his first year and the clenched fist response offered by the regime in Tehran, the White House was still in need of a strategy with Iran. The blueprint that the Obama administration eventually adopted was one put out by the president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Stephen Heintz, and former ambassadors, William Luers, Thomas Pickering, and Frank Wisner. They are the key members of The Iran Project, a pro-Iran lobbying group "dedicated to improving the relationship between the U.S. and Iranian governments." The Iran Project Peter Waldman explained in an article for Bloomberg Politics that "for more than a decade they've conducted a dialogue with well placed Iranians, including Mohammad Javad Zarif," Iran's foreign minister and chief nuclear negotiator. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund spent millions of dollars since 2003 promoting a nuclear agreement with Iran, mainly through The Iran Project. After the 9/11 attacks, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund's president, Stephen Heintz, became more infatuated with Iran and he began thinking about "its geostrategic importance and its relation to the Sunni world," Heintz said. So he established The Iran Project in cooperation with the United Nations Association of the U.S. headed by William Luers. Luers made contact with Mohammad Javad Zarif through Iran's mission to the UN in New York. He also recruited career diplomats Thomas Pickering (who also serves on NIAC's Advisory Board) and Frank Wisner. They "developed a relationship with Zarif, who was stationed in New York representing Iran at the UN. In early 2002, The Iran Project set up a meeting with Iranians affiliated with the Institute for Political and International Studies in Tehran, a think tank with close government ties," Waldman explained. The secret meetings they held in European capitals stopped when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became Iran's president in 2005 but their relationship with Zarif proved to be lynchpin in getting negotiations underway when he was made foreign minister in 2013. Waldman quotes a State Department official saying that the administration welcomed backchannel efforts like The Iran Project's because "it proves useful both to have knowledgeable former officials and country experts engaging with their counterparts and in reinforcing our own messages when possible." But The Iran Project, which became an independent non-governmental entity as Barack Obama took office in 2009, did more than that for the State Department under Hillary Clinton. They provided the initial plan that as their website states, would "encourage greater cooperation between the U.S. and Iran for greater regional stability." In other words, early on in the Obama administration, the decision was made that a deal with Iran would be about more than their nuclear file. Toward a New Policy on Iran In December 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Under-Secretary of State William Burns met with Heintz, Luers, Pickering, and Wisner--four of the nine key leaders of The Iran Project. As Hillary Clinton's emails demonstrate, Pickering emailed her their 10-page plan that "provides fuller detail on the ideas we discussed" on December 22, 2010. Entitled, "Toward a New Policy on Iran," it provided the outline for U.S. policy toward the Islamic Republic. Indeed, most of the features contained in the plan are recognizable looking back at U.S. diplomacy since that time. It is, in essence, a document of America's surrender from the Middle East and acquiescence in Iran's dominance in the region. This policy prescription would set the table to discuss the terms of that surrender. "We propose that you urge the President to instruct you to open a direct relationship with Iran," their 2010 policy paper states. "The burden rests on the U.S. to convince an uncertain Iranian leadership to come out of its shell." That required written assurances that the Obama administration would not seek a policy of regime change. Mr. Obama sent Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei a letter early in his first term and many more followed between either Khamenei or President Rouhani after his 2013 election. To start off on the right foot with Iran, President Obama "must find a way to communicate directly with the Supreme Leader a U.S. desire to open official talks" and it should be conducted through a personal emissary he appoints to deliver oral messages. According to Israel's biggest-selling daily newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, Barack Obama dispatched a personal emissary to a series of secret meetings in the late summer and autumn of 2012 to meet with "Iranian officials led by a personal representative of Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei." Obama's emissary was his special adviser, Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago lawyer and close friend of Mr. Obama, born in Shiraz, Iran, to American parents. The paper described her as "a key figure in secret contacts the White House is conducting with the Iranian regime." What Obama's emissary should call for "in a respectful tone" is mutual recognition of the other's legitimate interests in the area. That means before any discussions would commence, the U.S. would have to recognize as legitimate, Iran's reach into Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, to the Mediterranean Sea. In other words, the United States should sign up to legitimize the export of the Islamic Republic's revolution, a central raison d'être of the regime that emerged after the 1979 revolution. A thaw in relations must precede progress on the nuclear deal, this Iran lobby argued, because one of the consequences of continuing with the current policy "will be the missed opportunity to engage Iran in a long tem constructive regional strategy." Indeed, with Iran acting as America's partner in the Middle East, there will be an opportunity to help establish "a regional security structure aimed at giving Iran and the Gulf states a greater sense of stability." This would allow the U.S. and Iran "to develop together approaches to... eventually weaken Iran's support for Hamas and Hezbollah." This, of course, is akin to discussing fire safety measures with the neighborhood's leading arsonist. Therefore, the U.S. should immediately redeem Iran, end its isolation, and cooperate with the regime in Tehran on other issues of mutual interest before discussing the nuclear program directly: "A U.S. offer to cooperate with Iran as an equal partner on one or more non-nuclear issues will set the stage for [sic] more fruitful discussion of the nuclear issue. The U.S. will improve markedly chances to get Iran to deal seriously with the nuclear issues by starting with an offer to cooperate on other problems in the region." That is precisely what the Obama administration has been at pains to avoid saying publicly--that the U.S. has acted as Iran's air force in Iraq in an effort to rollback the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or ISIS. As Lee Smith reported in Tablet Magazine in May 2014: In Lebanon, the U.S. intelligence community has teamed up with the Lebanese Armed Forces' military intelligence, essentially now a subset of Hezbollah, to fight Sunni extremists. In Iraq, the administration has dispatched arms to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, another Iranian asset who is allied with groups that have killed American soldiers, like Asaib Ahl a-Haq, to support his counter-insurgency against Sunni fighters. Regarding the nuclear negotiations themselves, the plan's authors called on the administration to adopt an approach that would provide for Iran's enrichment under international supervision and would eliminate any suggestion that Iran suspends either its enrichment or its manufacturing of key components for their nuclear facilities as a precondition for any progress toward direct talks. And finally, once they begin to negotiate directly with each other, the U.S. should set aside the "zero enrichment preconditions for any progress in the talks." That means shredding the previous six UN Security Council resolutions aimed at stopping Iran's nuclear program and offering upfront to Iran the right to enrich uranium on its own soil. Most critics of the nuclear pact reached in July consider the original sin to be Obama's concession to Iran that they would be allowed to complete the full nuclear cycle on their own soil. What the Fatwa? Picking up on the Iran lobby's paper, another key talking point the Obama administration relied on is an understanding that "the Leader's fatwa against the building or use of nuclear weapons could establish an excellent basis for discussions with the aim of agreement for greater IAEA access to Iran's nuclear program to assure the world about Iran's nuclear intentions and develop an arrangement regarding enrichment." This nuclear fatwa, however, is a canard and a hoax. It is "nothing more than a propaganda ruse on the part of the Iranian regime," according to many analysts including the Middle East Media Research Institute. Nevertheless, it has been frequently cited by the administration and repeated by Mr. Obama in his March 2015 annual statement to Iran marking the Persian new year. And the IAEA now has secret side deals with Iran for inspections with holes so big one could drive a rundown Iranian Saipa through. To top it all off, The Iran Project policy plan also called for "mutual recognition that both leaders of the U.S. and Iran have stated publicly their desire for a world without nuclear weapons." That was designed to send a shot over Israel's bow--an assumed nuclear weapons program that sparked no regional nuclear arms race such as Iran's today. True to form, with the July nuclear deal sealed and in the rearview mirror, Mohammad Zarif penned an article in The Guardian, "Iran has signed a historic nuclear deal--now it's Israel's turn." Iran's Success at America's Expense If the Obama administration did not adopt this plan in its entirety, then it would be an impressive coincidence that just about all of the proposals in The Iran Project's blueprint were adopted and the predictable outcome is the shameful and harmful nuclear deal with Iran. It's not just that the Obama administration was willing to adopt the deal; it's the workman-like salesmanship of the deal that Mr. Obama is engaged in. Despite poll after poll indicating that the more Americans learn about the deal, the less they like it--with a two-to-one margin currently opposed--President Obama has stood resolute. Instead of explaining that the deal wasn't perfect but it was the best he could negotiate and it meets U.S. security needs, or acknowledging that his critics have some good points (since they're based on the President's broken promises) and working to make a few unilateral adjustments that would set more minds at ease, he has chose a different path. He offered no quarter, likening the experts who came out against the agreement to "Lobbyists and pundits" who "were suddenly transformed into arm-chair nuclear scientists." Then, he labeled them "the crazies." In a manner befitting of former CIA Director George Tenet's "slam dunk" prognosis in the run up the 2003 Iraq war, Obama even declared: "I've had to make a lot of tough calls as President, but whether or not this deal is good for American security is not one of those calls. It's not even close." The crystal clear reality is that the Obama administration is not just onboard with the Iran lobby's positions, but he has bought it all--hook, line, and sinker. Whether the inception of the idea began before he came to Washington, or whether The Iran Project, the National Iranian American Council, or the likes of the Leveretts cemented the approach he would adopt during negotiations, one thing is certain: The nuclear deal with Iran is a boon for all involved other than the U.S. and its allies in Israel and the wider Middle East. It marks America's definitive shift away from its traditional regional allies and defines a new relationship with a former adversary that is unfortunately based on hope rather than experience. The Iran lobby will no doubt celebrate this and build on their quiet and impressive success. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.